Tfw I take AI too seriously and explain it too clearly so nobody even gets madhttps://twitter.com/vgr/status/1014307742624780288 …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Only a sensationalist critique can penetrate a sensationalist discourse. Friend of mine has a similar problem: he writes coherently, non-sensationally and with carefully evidence about animal rights and veganism, and is surprised when he gets less traction than he expects
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @vgr
I wrote it for actual AI people, rather than singularitarians. Maybe it’s obvious to them? OTOH you’d think they’d do more science if so.
5 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Don't know about obvious (it's the sort of argument you evaluate on solidity rather than obviousness). Coming from the adjacent field of control theory which does in fact obsess over the science/math bits of the domain (convergence/stability, new interestingness) it seemed solid
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr @Meaningness
I think if you want to truly undermine current AI discourse, you have no real option other than to aim a broadside at Bostrom
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr @Meaningness
This is probably exactly what won't work. Bostrom is straddling the line between philosophy and philosophical science fiction. I think that many serious researchers find him brilliant and inspiring, but about as much worth attacking or defending as Asimov...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @Meaningness
That’s precisely why he’s worth attacking
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr @Meaningness
If you want to attack Bostrom in earnest, you may have to redo his calculations and things become rather technical and you will have to be smarter than Anders Sandberg and good luck with that. Otherwise you can just smear him, and while that has an audience, it is boring.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @Meaningness
I think his weakness as with rationalists is in the metaphysical foundations, not technical. But not a battle I’m picking anyway. It’s all mostly harmless.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I disagree. The most significant criticism of Bostrom is not that he might get some argument wrong, but that his flights may not be practically relevant. Chapman is relevant, but a broken metaphysical foundation is precisely the problem of his work, and leads to "nebulosity".
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.